If Russia had to fight German alone in WW2, would it win?

Jan 2009
1,264
#2
Quick question:
In this scenario, are the other allies still at war with Germany, just not doing anything? Or is this an alternative history scenario, where Germany and the states of the Eastern Europe join together to invade Communist Russia, with the Western Powers cheering them on and trading with Germany?
 
Aug 2010
16,205
Welsh Marches
#3
It is simply not true that other countries' help was 'negligible', this whole thread starts off on a false premise; it is really necessary to read books by historians rather than rely on what 'mamy people allover the internet say'!
 

Shtajerc

Ad Honorem
Jul 2014
6,743
Lower Styria, Slovenia
#4
In manpower alone I can see Russia winning by a margin, but does Jerry bring in his allies too or not? Is Ivan still receiving Lend & Lease? I doubt they can make it without the latter ...
 
Aug 2010
16,205
Welsh Marches
#5
One should also mention that the allies were attacking Germany massively through bombing-raids, which hampered the German war-effort and diverted resources from the easter front, and were fighting against the Germns in North Africa and Italy. These were not negligible factors, and the supply of materiel to the USSR was of course even more crucial; according to Kruschchev, Stalin himself actually stated to him that he thought that the USSR could not have won as it did without that aid.

If one is going to develop a counter-historical discussion, I think it is necessary to specify the conditions more precisely, and ask: "If Nazi Germany had entered into a war against the USSR without other countries directly or indirectly supporting either side except perhaps the Italians, could the USSR have defeated the Germans?
 
Jun 2012
5,707
Texas
#7
How about this. Germany, Italy, and the UK conclude a treaty at midnight the night before Germany invades the USSR such that they agree to existing conditions and the UK, Italy and the central states stay out of it. The US is convinced by Churchill to stay out of it as its Nazis vs. Communists.

So just Germany and the USSR.
 
Jul 2016
9,676
USA
#8
One should also mention that the allies were attacking Germany massively through bombing-raids, which hampered the German war-effort and diverted resources from the easter front, and were fighting against the Germns in North Africa and Italy. These were not negligible factors, and the supply of materiel to the USSR was of course even more crucial; according to Kruschchev, Stalin himself actually stated to him that he thought that the USSR could not have won as it did without that aid.

If one is going to develop a counter-historical discussion, I think it is necessary to specify the conditions more precisely, and ask: "If Nazi Germany had entered into a war against the USSR without other countries directly or indirectly supporting either side except perhaps the Italians, could the USSR have defeated the Germans?
USAAF didn't really start bombing Germany in force until '43. Previously, they weren't contributing much, they didn't have the logistics and organization set up yet. The British RAF was bombing Germany since the beginning of the war but doing so rather ineffectively with night raids that weren't accurate or effective at much of anything; even when Bomber Harris lowered the standards of success to the simple act of killing German civilians as a method of targeting morale, they weren't successful. Early radar used for navigation was so horrible, not only did it advertise the exact location of the bomber, the RAF Bomber Command considered it a successful mission if one bomb from the entire mission was dropped inside city limits. It wasn't until the USAAF got on board and teamed up with the RAF that they were able to perform 24/7 operations against Germany and other Nazi targets, which forced major changes in German air defense, including a reassignment of a large part of tactical fighter command that might else have been used to support field armies on the Eastern Front (who lost air superiority about that time).

Lend Lease didn't really even turn on until '42 and didn't start arriving in great numbers to help until '43 and later. Plus there was quite a lag, whereby equipment and supplies arriving could take upwards of half a year or more to reach the front lines.

Germany initially had only a small force in North Africa, to the point it wasn't even a sideshow. By the time they expanded the size of their forces to a whole field army, it was late '42 into '43. All things considered, especially the size of the Ostfront and how few panzer divisions were committed to North Africa (and which ones), Rommel's diversion didn't really pull that much strain on Germany, and certainly didn't keep them from victory over the Soviets.

The Soviet Union survived '41-42, repulsed the last major German summer offensive in '43, and started making major headway taking back ground without major support from the US or UK. Does that mean they could have won the war alone? No, because the Germans were still deep in Soviet territory at this time. However, Germany had no chance of defeating the Soviets from 1943, not without developing atomic bombs, which they weren't.
 
Jul 2016
9,676
USA
#9
How about this. Germany, Italy, and the UK conclude a treaty at midnight the night before Germany invades the USSR such that they agree to existing conditions and the UK, Italy and the central states stay out of it. The US is convinced by Churchill to stay out of it as its Nazis vs. Communists.

So just Germany and the USSR.
Then nearly everything up to Kursk happens near identical.

After studying the Barbarossa plan, which changed numerous times before it kicked off, and then multiple times while it was ongoing, it was a complete failure of a plan. It wasn't based on any specific strategy. It wasn't even about taking Moscow until the fall, and that only because previous operational goal, to destroy all Soviet main force units before reaching the Dnieper/Dvina rivers, had failed, as too many Red Army units had escaped encirlement, and Soviet reserve forces were vastly larger than the German general staff had originally calculated for.

It was a horrible plan. It was impressive in the early months in their success, as they caught the Soviets unprepared, flat footed, and even in later big encirclements like Smolesk, which was a major victory, the Germans forces were still mauled conducting it, especially in terms of lost armor and infantry that Germany could not replace easily. Barbarossa was a really bad plan...